MovieChat Forums > FilmBuff > Replies
FilmBuff's Replies
I live in Texas so I probably had a very different experience than you. I never got vaccinated and it was never an issue anywhere for any reason. It was just a choice I made, and no one cared.
It may be that we have different views on the world and life, but for me, I ignore all of that stuff. It's beyond my ability to change any of it, so why punish myself for the actions of others? All kinds of bad things happen. During WW2 Japanese and Italian families were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps. Before that, people were enslaved. Heck, my grandfather was a slave for the first 6 months he was in the U.S. He escaped, otherwise he may have been there longer, or even died in the camp. Bad people do bad things, but I don't expect reparations or apologies, and I'm certainly not going to stop enjoying a trip to the movies just because a theater had a temporary policy that may have been misguided.
Left-wing messaging has been prominent in films since at least the '60s, so it's nothing new to me. I learned a long time ago to ignore it and enjoy good movies despite it.
I don't go as often as I used to, when I lived in a city within a short walk (10 minutes or less) of 7 movie theaters, one of which ran a different double-feature daily, but I still go a lot. At that point in my life I saw minimum 5 movies per week. Now I average about 2. Letterboxd tells me I've seen a movie in a theater 28 times so far this year.
That's really nice.
We have vastly different taste in film! I'll see just about anything in a cinema, but I have zero interest in Meg 2. It's so interesting to me that that is a film that would draw someone to a theater who seldom goes. Why that movie?
I don't understand what you mean. How are theaters selective about who they let in to see a film?
That's the perfect way to describe your reaction. Rather than admit your side is at fault you blindly accept what you know to be untrue because it validates your beliefs. Try to be open to truth even when it contradicts what you want to be true.
Two links that provide little more than "we don't want it to be true therefore we think it's false." The film provides voluminous amounts of hard data, including video footage of people inserting multiple ballots into the ballot box. Cell phone geotracking places those same people at ballots in other states during runoffs, doing the same thing, and at Democrat headquarters at other times. I get that you don't want to admit that "your team" cheated, but the evidence is overwhelming. The Democrats paid people to vote hundreds of times each in battleground states, and flipped the election.
Perhaps rather than go back and forth about the 2020 election, let's consider the upcoming election. Is there any reason not to require every voter to provide an I.D. proving they are the registered voter they claim to be?
There's plenty of evidence. The court cases you refer to dealt with something else entirely.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt18924506/reference/
In most states you vote simply by saying a name. If the name is on the list, and that person hasn't voted yet, you get a ballot. No ID required.
Do you really think they'll let Trump win? He caught them off guard in 2016, but there's no way they allow it to happen. They stuffed the ballot boxes in 2020 and they'll do it again this time. Last time it was the mules, this time it will be the 100s of thousands of illegals they've imported and told when, where, and how to vote. I hope I'm wrong, but I see zero chance we get a fair election. And I should add that I'm not much of a fan of Donald Trump, because I know that will be the first thing lobbed at me. I just want a fair election.
Is it already streaming? I saw it at a cinema last week and enjoyed it quite a bit. It's nothing spectacular, but it certainly held my interest and had me, and the rest of the audience, laughing often. They don't make this kind of movie as often as they used to.
I thought that was more or less the point-- she lost her mind. After 9 months of mental and physical abuse she snapped. That's why they showed her refusal to kill a chicken. It set up the later scenes where she had no qualms about killing her torturers. As for the baby, well, we don't know what she birthed. It didn't sound human. We're left to guess whether she'd truly lost her mind to the point that she'd kill an infant, or if she was killing a demon, or if she didn't kill anything at all but instead let it live at the last second.
Yeah, for an unheralded indie film with a $9 million budget and zero promotion, $18 million and counting at the box office is impressive, especially in this era of streaming where nearly no films are bringing in a big haul.
That said, have you seen it yet? I'm going tonight.
I don't mind it. He's one of few heroes Americans have to look up to these days. Why not celebrate him?
Definitely true that the information was kept from the viewers as a "sting" on us as well, but there was also a very real plot reason for all of it, as I detailed a moment ago in my reply to the O.P.
It wasn't that Doyle Lonnegan was unfamiliar with horse race lingo. In fact, the trick only worked because he was very familiar with it. Kid Twist told him to place it on Lucky Dan with the assumption that Lonnegan would not clarify "win or place?" and would blindly race over and place a bet on Lucky Dan to win. That way, he would have legitimately, at least as far as he knew, lost all his money, and would have no valid reason to demand it back. Kid Twist can correctly say that he said "place" not "win," and Lonnegan, though angry, would hopefully have to admit defeat.
However, he MIGHT be too mad to give up and leave. He might try to kill Kid Twist, or Gondorff, or react in some unpredictable and deadly way. The faked FBI raid was to add a second layer of protection for Twist, Gondorff, Hooker and the rest.
Lastly, If Lonnegan ever did realize he'd been conned, or simply decided to force the issue and demand his money back or else he'd kill them all, they'd have been in trouble. Since Lonnegan thinks they are both dead, he won't pursue any sort of revenge.
I haven't seen some of those, but of those I have seen my rankings would be very different.
I think she's quite pretty. I don't really care about the size of a woman's bust, so that isn't a factor in my opinion, I just think she's got a beautiful face and a great overall body. She's the classic Hollywood starlet, like a modern-day Veronica Lake.
You made a foolish statement and now you've switched to insults rather than defend it or retract it. Go ahead and hide behind your rage and insults.